Diversity and Evenness of Weeds in Forage Corn Field under Different Tillage Systems

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

• M. H. Ranjbar ¹
• J. Gherekhloo ²
• A. Soltani ³

¹ GORGAN / C0. Golcheshmeh

² Mashhad / Gorgan

³ Tabriz / Gorgan

10.22067/jpp.v0i0.45478

Abstract

Introduction: Weed control is the most important challenge for adoption of conservation tillage systems. Tillage prepares optimum conditions for growth and development of crops. Conservation tillage compared with conventional tillage has many advantages in terms of improving soil conditions and soil moisture retention. Nevertheless, during the preparation of seed bed, decreasing of soil disturbance in different conservation tillage methods could be resulted in optimal conditions for growth of various weeds. Although each of the conservation tillage methods affect on weed population dynamics and change weed density and diversity, the effects of tillage systems on weed dynamics and diversity depend upon species, location and environment which is complex and not fully understood.
Materials and Methods: To investigate the effect of different tillage systems (Conventional, Minimum tillage and No-tillage) on diversity and evenness of weeds at beginning and end of critical weed control period in forage corn field, a study was conducted in a Nested design in Azadshahr during 2013 growing season. The experiment consisted of three methods including no-tillage, reduced tillage (once or twice a composite disk tillage) and conventional tillage (moldboard plowing once and three times the disk). The experiment was done in three separate plots and the size of each plot was 1500 m2. 15 samples were selected in each plot using a 1*1 m2 quadrate and number of weeds species were counted, separately in each plot. Fifteen kg. ha-1 seeds of corn cultivar SC 770 was planted at 01/07/2013 for all tillage systems. Row spacing and distance of seeds on rows considered as 75 and 14 cm, respectively and seeds were buried in 4-5 cm in all studied tillage systems. 15 samples were selected in each plot using a 1*1 m2 quadrate and number of weeds species were counted, separately in each plot at begging and end of critical weed control period (CWCP).Data Analyses
To calculate Simpson's diversity index we've used relation 1 (10):
(1)


In above relation: 1-D: Simpson's diversity index; ni: number of people at ith variant; nj: number of people at jth variant; N: Number of all people; S: Number of all variants, at sample has been showed.
To calculate Camargo uniformity index we've used relation 2 (10):
(2)


In this relation: E': Camargo uniformity index; ni: number of people at ith variant; nj: number of people at jth variant; N: Number of all people; S: Number of all variants, at sample has been showed.
To calculate Rencon Similarity index we've used relation 3 (22):
(3)

In this relation: P: percentage of samples 1 and 2 similarity; p1i: percentage of "i" variant exist at sample community number1; p2i: percentage of "j" variant exist at sample community number2.
Drawing of all regressions in these studies, calculation of uniformity index, similarity index has been made by Excel. SAS software has been used to fit regressions.
Results and Discussion: Simpson diversity index (SDI) at the beginning of the critical period for no-tillage system Determined as 0.30 whichwas less than SDI of the other two tillage systems. However, at the end of CWCP, amount of SDI for conventional tillage system (0.40) was less than minimum and no-tillage. Camargo uniformity index was determine 0.16 and 0.24, 0.16 and 0.20, 0.20 respectively at beginning and end of CWCP for no-tillage, conventional and minimum tillage systems, respectively. Results revealed that weeds at the end of CWCP and in no-tillage system have more evenness than other two tillage systems. The results showed that at least two of tillage and conventional tillage, for the beginning and end of the critical period of weed diversity, there was little difference. But no-tillage system at the critical period of weed diversity was lower than the critical period.The results showed that at least two of tillage and conventional tillage, for the beginning and end of the critical period of weed diversity, there was little difference.But no-tillage system at the critical period of weed diversity was lower than the critical period.Alsothe minimum value for the no-tillage system and obtained weed diversity at the beginning of the critical period.The highest diversity of weeds for no-tillage system at the end of the critical period.Similarity index showed thatgrown species at the beginning of the season until the end of the critical period, growth was sustained in the field but no-tillage system as much similarity in the beginning and end of the critical period was only 35 percent; this suggests that the species composition of weeds in no-tillage system is dynamic in time.
Conclusion: Thanks to my wife on the cheek counting and measurement of dry weight species helped me.

Keywords

• Camargo index
• Critical weed control period
• Simpson index
• Tillage system

20.1001.1.20084749.1396.31.2.4.3

---

References

1- Anderson R.L., Tanaka D.L., Black A.L and Schweizer E.E. 1998. Weed community and crop rotation, tillage and nitrogen fertility. Weed Technology. 12: 531-536.

2- Booth B.D., and Swanton C.J. 2002. Assembly theory applied to weed communities. Weed Science. 50: 2-13.

3- Buhler D.D., Gunsolus J.L., and Ralston D.F. 1992. Integrated weed management techniques to reduce herbicide inputs in soybean. Agronomy Journal. 84: 973-978

4- Buhler D.D., Stoltenbery D.E., Becker R.L., and Gunsolus J. 1994. Perennial weed population after 14 years of variable tillage and cropping practices. Weed Science. 42: 205-209.

5- Cardina J., Regnier E., and Harrison K. 1991. Long-term tillage effects on seed banks in three Ohio soils. Weed Science. 39: 186–194.

6- Clements D.R., Benoit D.L., Murphy S.D., and Swanton C.J. 1996. Tillage effects on weed seed return and seed bank composition. Weed Science. 44: 314-322.

7- Demjanova E., Macak M., Dalovi I., Majernik F., Stefan Tyr and Smatana. J. 2009. Effects of tillage systems and crop rotation on weed density, weed species composition and weed biomass in maize. Agronomy Research, 7(2): 785-792.

8- Derksen D.A., Lafond G.P., Thomas A.G., Loeppky H.A., and Swanton C.J. 1993. Impact of agronomic practices on weed communities: tillage systems. Weed Science. 41: 409–417.

9- Dorado J., Delmonte J.P., and Lopex-Fando C. 1999. Weed seed bank response to crop rotation and tillage in semiaird agro ecosystems. Weed Science. 47: 67-73.

10- EjtEhad I H., SpherI A., and Akafy J.r. 2000. Methods for measuring biodiversity. Publications Mashhad SID. 228 pp.

11- Froud-Williams R.J., Chancellor R.J., and Drennan D.S.H. 1981. Potential changes in weed floras associated with reduced-cultivation systems for cereal production in temperate regions. Weed Research. 21: 99–109.

12- Gruber, S and Claupein, W. 2009. Effect of tillage intensity on weed infestation in organic farming. Soil Tillage Research. 105: 104–111.

13- Jasinskaite S., Pilipavicius V., and Lazauskas P. 2009. Perennial weed control by two layer ploughing. Agronomy Research, 7(Special issue I): 227-282.

14- Krauss M., Berner A., Burger D., Wiemken A., Niggli U., and Mader P. 2010. Reduced tillage intemperate organic farming: Implications for management and forage production. Soil Use and Management. 26: 12-20.

15- Legere A., Stevenson F.C., and Benoit D.L. 2011. The selective memory of weed seed banks after18 years of conservation tillage. Weed Science. 59: 98–106

16- Liebman M., Drummond F., Corson A., and Zhang J. 1996. Tillage and rotation crop effects on weed dynamics in potato production systems. Agronomy Journal. 88: 18-26.

17- Lindwall C.W., Larney F.J., Johnston A.M., and Moyer J.R. 1994. Crop management in conservation tillage systems. In: Unger, P.W. (Ed.), Managing Agricultural Residues, CRC Press, BocaRaton, FL, pp. 185–207.

18- Moyer J.R., Roman E.S., Lindwall C.W., and Blackshaw R.E. 1994. Weed management in conservation tillage systems for wheat production in North and South America. Crop Prot. 13:243–259.

19- Mas M.T., and Verdu A.M.C. 2003. Tillage system effects on weed communities in a 4-year crop rotation under Mediterranean dry land conditions. Soil and Tillage Research, 74: 15-24.

20- Macak M., Demjanova E., and Kova K. 2005. Accompanying weed biodiversity in intensive agroecosystem. In Proceeding from Traditional Agroecosystems–1st International Conference, September 19–21, Nitra, FAO, p.4–8.

21- Moyer J.R., Roman E.S., Lindwall C.W., and Blackshaw R.E. 1994. Weed management in conservation tillage systems for wheat production in North and South America. Crop Protection, 13: 243-259.

22- Nakamoto T., Yamagishi J., and Miura F. 2006. Effect of reduced tillage on weeds and soil organisms in winter wheat and summer maize cropping on Humic Andosols in Central Japan. Soil and Tillage Research. 85: 94–106.

23- Pawlikowski T., Barczak T., and Bennewicz J. 2008. Bees (Hymenoptera: Apiformes) of the agricultural areas in the lower Vistula valley. Journal of Agricultural Science, 52: 67-79.

24- Peigne J., Ball B.C., Roger-Estrade J., and David C. 2007. Is conservation tillage suitable for organic farming?. Soil Use and Management. 23: 129–144.

25- Plaza E.H., Kozak M., Navarrete L and Gonzalez-Andujar J.L. 2011. Tillage system did not affect weed diversity in a 23-year experiment in Mediterranean dry land. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 140: 102-105.

26- Rashed mohassel M.H., Siyamrguyi A., Nasiri mahalati M., Khargani F., and Ashrafi A. 2005. The effect of crop rotation on the composition, density and distribution of weed seedlings. Agricultural Science and Technology. 19: 137-146.

27- Sosnoskie L.M., Herms C.P., and Cardina J. 2006. Weed seed bank community composition in a 35-yr-old tillage and rotation experiment. Weed Science. 54: 263–273.

28- Streit B., Rieger S.B., Stamp P., and Richner W. 2002. The effect of tillage intensity and time of herbicide application on weed communities and populations in maize in central Europe. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 92: 211–224.